this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

Homelab

22 readers
1 users here now

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I have a Synology that needs more storage. Thoughts on WD vs Seagate?

I've always bought WD Red, but with the recent WD controversies (including the SMR/CMR scandal and the recent WDDA warning), I'm considering Seagate. Also, I can't find any difference between the IronWolf Pro and Exos drives. What am I missing?

Metric Seagate IronWolf Pro 20TB Seagate Exos X20 20TB WD Red Pro 20TB
Spindle speed (RPM) 7200 7200 7200
Internal transfer rate 285 MB/s 272 MB/s 268 MB/s
Gas Helium Helium ???
Cache 256MB 256MB 512MB
CMR? Yes Yes Yes
MTBF (hours) 2.5m 2.5m 2.5m
Non-recoverable errors per bits read 1 in 10^15 1 in 10^15 1 in 10^15
Load unload cycles 600k 600k 600k
Workload rate (TB/yr) 550 550 550
Annualized Failure Rate (AFR) 0.35% 0.35% ???
Warranty 5yr 5yr 5yr
Price $349.99 $329.99 $379.99

Also, please don't recommend shucking (those drives are in external enclosures because they didn't pass QC to become internal HDDs).

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ajtatum@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

Toshiba n300

[–] Jaack18@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

seems like seagate has higher failures, WD has terrible a terrible warranty department. pick your poison

[–] ixidorecu@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

Can't help with these 3 specifically. I ordered som wd gokd drives. Which are the ones intended for datacenters. Price was lower. And I think it was 10^16 not 10^15. That may not sound like alot. But doing the math, number of bits on a raid6 of 8 14tb drives, basically going to hit 10^15. And they supposedly have firmware to handle vibration. Maybe worth looking into.

As for these 3, I would think they would all be fine choices.

[–] corruptboomerang@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

I've personally just bought what is cheaper $/Gb if they're broadly equal then features & power, if still locked I have tended towards WD. But I'm not storing anything critical and if a drive failed, I'd be annoyed but that's about it.

[–] MrExCEO@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

Seagate for internal drives, WD for external.

[–] poultryinmotion1@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

WD. I've had more Seagates fail on me, but take a look at backblazes's data. They go through a ton of drives.

[–] TheRealSeeThruHead@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

Had a lot of wd fail over the years. Since upgrading to Seagate exos only. Haven’t had any failures. Maybe due to the fact they are enterprise drives. Not sure. But very happy with Seagate exos

[–] CyberbrainGaming@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

IronWolf Pro

I have 20+ of them, none have failed.
I also have 50+ Exos, none have failed.

[–] Serge-Rodnunsky@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

The problem with relying on peoples past experiences of drive failures is that it’s a lagging indicator. That is we can only say retroactively what was better or worse, but of course that means little of current gen hardware. The reality is that the drives people see failing are always the ones they have. Backblaze data tends to be a little better just because of the sheer volume, but again, the fact that drive X1 failed at a marginally higher rate than drive Y1 doesn’t mean that drive X2 will fail at a significantly higher rate than drive Y2.

All this is to say that all modern drives are actually amazingly reliable and also that they will all eventually fail. Strategize your data usage with the later fact in mind, and then pull the trigger on whatever drives feel most useful to you. I’ve done builds with WD and Seagate Exos drives recently and both are still operating perfectly with no failures… but who knows what will happen down the line.

[–] KlanxChile@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

Exos are noisy, but they work great..

And the helium fill? Makes them sound funny